Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

Different takes on latest ISIS issues--

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/world/middleeast/more-assyrian-christians-captured-as-isis-attacks-villages-in-syria.html?emc=edit_th_20150227&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=37355772

The reports are like something out of a distant era of ancient conquests: entire villages emptied, with hundreds taken prisoner, others kept as slaves; the destruction of irreplaceable works of art; a tax on religious minorities, payable in gold.

Meanwhile the US was bragging that:

Iraq and its allies have made significant gains in battling militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), killing thousands of fighters and 50 percent of the group's top commanders, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-half-of-isis-leaders-killed-by-iraq-and-allies/

and while Republicans keep urging a tougher policy but never explaining it, lib leaning blogger Kevin Drum notes:

At a first guess, a full-scale assault on Mosul would likely require at least 2-3 times as many troops and result in several hundred American deaths. And Mosul is only a fraction of the territory ISIS controls. It's a big fraction, but still a fraction.

So this is what I want to hear from Republican critics of Obama's ISIS strategy. I agree with them that training Iraqi troops and relying on them to fight ISIS isn't all that promising. But the alternative is likely to be something like 30-50,000 troops committed to a battle that will result in hundreds of American casualties. Are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz willing to own up to that?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/i-want-hear-republican-plan-fighting-isis

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27/bibipalooza-is-a-dangerous-distraction/

I believe in nuclear non-proliferation and I think every country in the world should disarm their nuclear weapons. I however do not believe that Israel should be the first state to lead the way considering their particular circumstances.

i can't help but think these two statements are essentially contradictory. or rather, the logic underpinning the second statement—when applied to all nation-states, because in fairness it would have to be—obviates the first.

x-post-- Foreign Policy writer makes it sound so easy for US to work with Egypt and get them to enact reforms.

hey, it's worked in the pa-- never mind.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/25/get-over-it-theres-no-better-deal-coming-on-irans-nuclear-program/

As for imposing additional sanctions, there is nothing in the Iranians’ record to suggest that at some level of economic pain they would cry uncle and capitulate to hard-line demands. If this were possible, it would have happened by now after many years of debilitating sanctions.

Maybe Paul Pillar didn't notice but Iran is currently negotiating with the West over its nuclear program exclusively because of the sanctions regime. Also, he speaks very vaguely about questions like - what kind of deals can we get? What kind of deal should we expect, etc,. aka this is a very superficial analysis. There's a big difference between a deal that lets IAEA into only Natanz but not Arak, or that forces Iran to close down some of its centrifuges (though obviously not all), or that forces Iran to disclose the two unexplained alleged explosives tests, or that allows IAEA to inspect any future sites that they find suspicious, or whether they can keep the IR-40 facility at all, not to mention whether they'll actually make concessions regarding their sponsorship of Assad, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. People who frame the negotiations as 'whatever Obama can get' and 'nothing,' are being very disingenuous imho. There is no guarantee that Obama will get the concessions that he might've been able (and if reports from Iran that US is "begging" them for a deal are correct, that's certainly true). Just remember how Obama has traditionally negotiated with the Republicans and then tell me that you think he is going to get the best deal possible from Iran.

I will confess to not knowing the specifics re sanctions, but I couldn't help but notice that Krauthammer and other cons are all saying just add more sanctions re both Iran and Cuba; they will pay off, just give them time.

Obv there's a balance to be struck but I don't think there's any question that Iran is negotiating w/ P5+1 in large part because they want the sanctions reduced.

In other news: Iraq attempt to regain Tikrit

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/middleeast/iraq-tikrit-isis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Even victory in Tikrit could come at a great cost, given the prominent role of Shiite militias, which are feared by the Sunni population. The militias are largely controlled by Iran, the region’s dominant Shiite power, and they could widen the country’s sectarian divide, especially if they carry out abuses, as they have done elsewhere.

The United States, in returning to a military role in Iraq, has pushed for reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiite-led government and the minority Sunnis, but there has been little progress. The United States has also insisted that Iraq establish Sunni fighting units to retake and hold Sunni areas, and it warned against Shiite forces invading those areas.

how long have shai and sunni been fighting? on-and-off for 1,400 years? i'm sure some stern words from the US will sort that all out.

"play nice, children!"

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/court-rules-police-must-allow-jewish-prayer-on-temple-mount/2015/03/02/

Unrelated to Temple Mount issue and not trying to compare, but I know someone who was recently in Jerusalem and on a Friday Shabbat watched Hasids spit on tourist who took a picture near the wall; and watched Hasids scream in face of man carrying female toddler who made the mistake of being in the male only portion of the area with a female (albeit a toddler he was carrying)

I didn't see this thread over the weekend but yeah it would be nuts for Israel to disarm first

the Mosul museum stuff is terrible, though maybe that's on some other thread?

they yelled at a guy for carrying his female toddler into the men's section? that's insane.

23 years of imminent kaboom!

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

Maybe this was all Obama 18th dimensional chess to get more people to pay attention to Bibi:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/the-cry-being-heard-around-washington-i-need-a-netanyahu-ticket.html?smid=tw-share

For Senator Lindsey Graham, the only ticket more in demand than a seat inside the House chamber for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Tuesday morning would be “if it was Garth Brooks — maybe.”

“The tickets are hotter than fresh latkes,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

Mr. Graham said the White House’s “desire to undercut” Mr. Netanyahu’s visit had simply made it more appealing. “They have made it the most talked about thing in Washington, and I think it blew up in their face,” Mr. Graham said. “Everything he says, people want to hear, and people want to be in that room to listen, they want to be in person. It’s become a historic speech.”

Mr. Boehner’s office said it had received requests for 10 times as many tickets as there are available seats in the gallery, and both the House and the Senate have set up alternate viewing locations that will also require tickets. There will be heightened security throughout the Capitol complex, according to the Capitol police.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-tehran-reportedly-calls-obama-demands-threatening-n316211

TEHRAN — Iran's foreign minister accused President Barack Obama of making "unacceptable and threatening" demands during high-stakes talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear program, the semi-official Fars news agency reported Tuesday.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-02/reason-many-you-still-haven-t-decided-vote-me-my-voice

Israelis are clearly torn over Netanyahu's approach as prime minister. But whatever they think of what he says, they can all agree that he sounds great.

Netanyahu's deep voice, polished delivery and flawless American English pack a punch. Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, who's hoping to unseat Netanyahu when Israelis go to the polls in two weeks, doesn't hit quite so hard.

“Israeli people are very concerned about Herzog’s voice,” said Tsfira Grebelsky Lichtman, a communications consultant for some of the top candidates — she wouldn't say which ones — in the upcoming Israeli elections.

“Netanyahu has a very unique and prominent voice in terms of volume, tone and clarity," Lichtman says. "When he goes into a room and says hello, you can’t ignore him. It’s something that creates leadership. As a matter of people’s perceptions, as far as opinion polls that I saw, Herzog’s voice expresses the opposite.”

Herzog is widely perceived as a polite diplomat with a tinny, flat voice. To loosen up his vocal chords, he's taken voice lessons with Israel’s leading voice coach. He even addressed the problem head-on in a campaign ad.

Oy Veh

he went to school here in philly suburbs - attended the same high school at my mom (he was a few years ahead of her)

powerful speech so far I think (whether you agree with his points or not)

i like the point he just made, which is that /this deal/ or /war/ is a false dichotomy designed to make this particular deal seem inevitable

@MichaelCrowley
A "dark, Strangelovian" speech, says Christiane Amanpour

wow the iranian journalist didn't like it?

profiling the Fifth Estate, tsk tsk

...

false dichotomy says the guy who wants war

he said he doesn't want war and i believe that bibi is in general very conservative about such things - i don't think he wants a messy israeli-iran conflict

here's my realpolitik [tm] take on the Bibi speech:

I think Obama has two very bad habits that Bibi's speech may have had a somewhat ameliorative impact upon. One, he's terrible at negotiating deals (see: his entire administration's history with the Republican Party). He doesn't seem to understand leverage, and thinks that good faith efforts are more important than, eg, bargaining from a position of strength. He'll give away the henhouse if he thinks it'll get him a partner 'across the aisle.' Two, if he thinks he can push something through without a lot of attention, he feels no compulsion to be transparent. He's a very secretive dude with a very secretive administration, so putting some attention (even negative attention) on the negotiations might force him to come back w/ something better than he might've hoped to get away with.

i don't think he wants to convince the US to go to war against Iran. i think by, eg, hinting to the military option, he's trying to generate some leverage for the negotiations.

you don't think Bibi's domestic political concerns factor in at all?

Maybe I mean I believe he probably thought it would help his election chances but if anything I'd think the speech ultimately hurt him. But he's been outspoken about Iran for years now. When has the lack of an election ever stopped him from discussing Iranian nukes?

Also he didn't set the negotiating extension for so close to Israeli elections.

Does anyone believe that if the deadline for negotiations was March but the election was next year we wouldn't be hearing from Bibi?

I don't actually know how this is playing domestically for him, it's just that the timing being so close to the election makes me wonder. was an honest question

I heard he was trailing Herzog in the polls, so fingers crossed we get shot of the tubthumping blowhard... for a while anyway.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/mar/04/netanyahu-speech-churchill-syndrome/

interrupted by nearly two dozen ovations

Laugh or cry, you decide.

one of the pro-speech saudi pieces: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/03/03/President-Obama-listen-to-Netanyahu-on-Iran.html

Barry Crimmins @crimmins
Netanyahu's next stop? Motivational speech @ Ferguson, Mo Police Dept.

so what are Bibi's re-election prospects? does Herzog and his center-left coalition even have a prayer?

Herzog and his party are reportedly close, but I keep seeing stories suggesting that Herzog's soft-spoken voice and his nickname (!) are hurting his support

http://jewishexponent.com/headlines/2015/03/isaac-herzog-hopes-soft-speech-can-carry-israel-s-election

Herzog is soft-spoken, focused on building consensus domestically and strengthening ties internationally. Netanyahu is vociferous, presenting himself as an uncompromising leader willing to stand up even to Israel’s closest allies.

“All parts of our society are simmering from within, are asking questions, are debating,” Herzog said on Sunday. “My role as a leader is to unite everyone, bring them together to a common denominator, give them a sense of purpose and hope.”

Herzog’s detractors — Netanyahu chief among them — say this tendency is a weakness. Netanyahu’s ads claim Herzog will “capitulate to terror” and question whether he’s fit to lead a country beset by threats. Herzog’s quiet demeanor may also be costing him with voters accustomed to an outspoken prime minister. Though his party has been running neck-and-neck with Netanyahu’s Likud atop the polls, a recent Times of Israel survey found that one-fifth of likely voters either had no opinion of Herzog or hadn’t even heard of him. Herzog’s nickname — the diminutive “Bougie” — doesn’t help.

How is bougie more of a liability than bibi

And what's with the weird nicknames?

Good questions. I have seen 3 stories mentioning that "Bougie" allegedly hurts him, but no real explanation or comparison.

I think Obama has two very bad habits that Bibi's speech may have had a somewhat ameliorative impact upon. One, he's terrible at negotiating deals (see: his entire administration's history with the Republican Party). He doesn't seem to understand leverage, and thinks that good faith efforts are more important than, eg, bargaining from a position of strength. He'll give away the henhouse if he thinks it'll get him a partner 'across the aisle.'

To call someone a poor negotiator you have to assume the good faith and honest intentions of the people on the other end. "His entire administration's history with the Republican Party" consists of listening to bat shit ideas from legislators who don't want to legislate and don't grant the legitimacy of his elections.

A big part of negotiations is recognizing the good or bad faith of the people you're negotiating with. You're not complementing him by suggesting he's a naif.

Like saying he's really good at negotiating w perfect actors is pretty meaningless

I suppose he could negotiate how to phase out Social Security, how many troops to commit to Syria, how to replace the ACA with a $1000 tax break, and resigning so that Mitt Romney can replace him.

Idk what you're trying to say. If your point is that the republicans were never interesting in compromise, that's what I'm saying is the problem. Despite that Obama often conceded his position as good faith signs to try to make bipartisan deals. The analogy to the ayatollahs should be obv